Re: onlinkassumption-00 comments

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

Just responding to a few comments which were maybe still a bit unclear..

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> > 4. Conclusion
> > 
> > ==> instead of just deleting everything related to the on-link assumption,
> > it may be reasonable to suggest some summary of the problems or that in
> > previous versions of the specification, the behaviour was different..  But
> > that's likely to be ironed out with IPv6 WG.
> 
> I'm not sure I completely understand the problem you're bringing up.  Are
> you worried that the conclusion won't make sense once the IPv6 WG updates
> Neighbor Discovery with these suggestions?

Sorry for being unclear.. wrote up the comments too fast I guess.

My point was that as RFC2461 has been Draft Standard since 1998, there are
a lot of implementations out there with the previous behaviour.  We
(probably) can't just go and remove every references to it, like it never
existed.  We'd probably need to add a very short summary (what has
changed, and why) and discussion in ND2461bis and a pointer to this
document.

What I was saying that we could either spell the issue in more detail at 
this phase in this document, or wait until IPv6 WG resolves RFC2461bis 
issue (assuming that'd be done soon), and look what kind of text to copy 
from there to over here..

> > 5. Security Considerations
> > 
> >    VPN case
> > 
> > ==> does this (the cisco vpn issue?) need more elaboration here?
> 
> I don't have objections to elaborating.  What do you think would be
> useful?

First, I was not sure which issue you were referring to.  The VPN scenario 
described in the v6onbydefault document, or something else?  In any case, 
at least a couple of lines would be useful :-)

> >  For
> >    example, two systems that are manually configured with global
> >    addresses while on separate links are then plugged in back-to-back.
> >    They can still communicate with each other via their global addresses
> >    because they'll correctly assume that each is on-link.
> > 
> > ==> is there something missing after "while ..." -- I can't quite parse
> > this?
> 
> I don't think so.  Removing the cosmetic bits in the sentence boils it
> down to: "two systems that are configured while on separate links are
> then plugged in back-to-back".  While they were on separate links,
> they were configured. They were then plugged in back-to-back.

Ok.  Maybe reword the first sentence to:

    For
    example, consider the case where two systems on separate links are 
    manually configured with global addresses and are then plugged in 
    back-to-back.

maybe that would be a bit easier-to-read sentence?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings